# A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory

- 3.4k Downloads
- 112 Citations

## Abstract

This paper provides an efficient method to measure utility under prospect theory. Our method minimizes both the number of elicitations required to measure utility and the cognitive burden for subjects, being based on the elicitation of certainty equivalents for two-outcome prospects. We applied our method in an experiment and were able to replicate the main findings on prospect theory, suggesting that our method measures what it is intended to. Our data confirmed empirically that risk seeking and concave utility can coincide under prospect theory. Utility did not depend on the probability used in the elicitation, which offers support for the validity of prospect theory.

## Keywords

Prospect theory Utility measurement Loss aversion## JEL classification

D81## Notes

### Acknowledgments

Peter Wakker and two anonymous referees provided helpful comments. Mohammed Abdellaoui and Olivier L’Haridon’s research was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR, Risk Attitude). Han Bleichrodt’s research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

## References

- Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (2000). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions,”
*Management Science*46, 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Aurélien Baillon, and Peter P. Wakker. (2007). “Combining Bayesian Beliefs and Willingness to Bet to Analyze Attitudes towards Uncertainty,” Working Paper, Erasmus University.Google Scholar
- Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Carolina Barrios, and Peter P. Wakker. (2007). “Reconciling Introspective Utility with Revealed Preference: Experimental Arguments Based on Prospect Theory,”
*Journal of Econometrics*138, 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Han Bleichrodt, and Corina Paraschiv. (2007). “Measuring Loss Aversion under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Approach,”
*Management Science*53, 1659–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Andersen, Steffen, Glenn Harrison, Morten Lau, and E. Elisabet Rutström. (2007). “Behavioral Econometrics for Psychologists,”
*Journal of Economic Psychology*(forthcoming).Google Scholar - Baucells, Manel and Antonio Villasis. (2006). “Stability of Risk Preferences and the Reflection Effect of Prospect Theory,” Working Paper, IESE.Google Scholar
- Beattie, Jane, and Graham Loomes. (1997). “The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*14, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. (1995). “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,”
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*110, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bleichrodt, Han, and Jose L. Pinto. (2000). “A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,”
*Management Science*46, 1485–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bleichrodt, Han, Jose L. Pinto, and Peter P. Wakker. (2001). “Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility,”
*Management Science*47, 1498–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Booij, Adam S. and Gijs van de Kuilen. (2007). “A Parameter-Free Analysis of the Utility of Money for the General Population under Prospect Theory,” Working Paper, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Bostic, Raphael, R. J. Herrnstein, and R. Duncan Luce. (1990). “The Effect on the Preference Reversal of Using Choice Indifferences,”
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*13, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Camerer, Colin F., and Robin M. Hogarth. (1999). “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital–Labor–Production Framework,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*19, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chateauneuf, Alain, and Michèle Cohen. (1994). “Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-Expected Utility Model,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*9, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cubitt, Robin, Chris Starmer, and Robert Sugden. (1998). “On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System,”
*Experimental Economics*1, 115–131.Google Scholar - Diecidue, Enrico, and Wakker, Peter P. (2001). “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*Springer*23(3), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie and Olivier l’Haridon. (2008). “Monetary Incentives in the Loss Domain: An Experimental Comparison of Three Rewarding Schemes Including Real Losses,” Working Paper, HEC Business School.Google Scholar
- Farquhar, Peter. (1984). “Utility Assessment Methods,”
*Management Science*30, 1283–1300.Google Scholar - Fennema, Hein, and Marcel van Assen. (1998). “Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Trade-Off Method,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*17, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gonzalez, Richard, and George Wu. (1999). “On the Form of the Probability Weighting Function,”
*Cognitive Psychology*38, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gul, Faruk. (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,”
*Econometrica*59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Heath, Chip, Steven Huddart, and Mark Lang. (1999). “Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise,”
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*114, 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hershey, J. C., and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1985). “Probability versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?”
*Management Science*31, 1213–1231.Google Scholar - Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. (2002). “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects,”
*American Economic Review*92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,”
*Econometrica*47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Köbberling, Veronika, and Peter P. Wakker. (2005). “An Index of Loss Aversion,”
*Journal of Economic Theory*122, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Laughhunn, Dan J., John W. Payne, and Roy Crum. (1980). “Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns,”
*Management Science*26, 1238–1249.Google Scholar - McCord, Mark, and Richard de Neufville. (1986). “Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment,”
*Management Science*32, 56–60.Google Scholar - Myagkov, Mikhail, and Charles R. Plott. (1997). “Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments,”
*American Economic Review*87, 801–828.Google Scholar - Payne, John W., Dan J. Laughhunn, and Roy Crum. (1980). “Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,”
*Management Science*26, 1039–1060.Google Scholar - Payne, John W., Dan J. Laughhunn, and Roy Crum. (1981). “Further Tests of Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,”
*Management Science*27, 953–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rabin, Matthew. (2000). “Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem,”
*Econometrica*68, 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Savage, Leonard J. (1954).
*The Foundations of Statistics*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Schoemaker, Paul J.H. (1990). “Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?”
*Management Science*36, 1451–1463.Google Scholar - Starmer, Chris. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk,”
*Journal of Economic Literature*28, 332–382.Google Scholar - Starmer, Chris, and Robert Sugden. (1991). “Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,”
*American Economic Review*81, 971–978.Google Scholar - Stott, Henry P. (2006). “Cumulative Prospect Theory’s Functional Menagerie,”
*The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*32, 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tversky, Amos, and Craig Fox. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty,”
*Psychological Review*102, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Viscusi, W. Kip, and William N. Evans. (2006). “Behavioral Probabilities,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*32, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wakker, Peter P., and Daniel Deneffe. (1996). “Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities when Probabilities Are Distorted or Unkown,”
*Management Science*42, 1131–1150.Google Scholar - Wu, George, and Richard Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,”
*Management Science*42, 1676–1690.Google Scholar